User talk:Johnreginaldsmith

Parliamentary Secretary

You don't seem to understand that an appointment to Parliamentary Secretary is a Ministerial appointment, see definition on Parliamentary Education Office [1]. For example Minister, the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson MP (LIBERAL PARTY) has listed under Ministerial Appointments[2]the following: Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence from 30.01.01 to 26.11.01. Minister for Education, Science and Training from 26.11.01 to 27.01.06. Minister for Defence from 27.1.06.

Come on mate -it's clear you don't like Theophanous, but credit where credit's due.AustralianLeft 01:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition in the reference you cite makes it clear it isn't a Ministerial appointment:

parliamentary secretary

A parliamentary secretary is a member of parliament appointed by executive government to assist a minister with his or her work. The parliamentary secretary sat beside the minister.

Johnreginaldsmith 06:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Andrew Theophanous

John, I have few problem with the changes Socrates7500 made to the article since our last discussion. The change they made that least in the spirit of Wikipedia policy is to remove some of the {{fact}} tags without adding references.

I will caution you, however, not to revert changes made by this user when they have introduced reliable sources to back some of the information presented in the article. When you tag a section "{{fact}}", you are requesting a citation for a specific claim. In some of the instances, Socrates7500 provided reliable sources to back the claims, edits which were then reverted by you (see here). This is not acceptable.

As far as your claims that Socrates7500 did not participate in consensus building, they may be true. But you had already made it difficult for them to assume good faith considering some of the edit summaries and user names that you have employed.

The pushing of a specific point of view is not tolerated here (by either side). In the future, make sure your edits are constructive and unbiased. I will add this article to my watchlist to ensure that all parties are taking care to edit this article in the best interest of Wikipedia, and not themselves or their political affiliations. I will also be taking a more active role in making sure this article is as neutral as possible.

If you have any further questions, feel free to drop me a message. Caknuck 22:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tvoz |talk 20:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]